Editing Failure to appear (section)

=== Historically ===
Punishments for FTAs originated out of courts' [[Contempt of court|contempt]] powers. The [[Judiciary Act of 1789]], the first federal framework governing pretrial detention, did not single out FTAs for punishment but decreed that there should be sanctions for "all contempts of authority".<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last=Murphy |first=Erin |date=2009 |title=Manufacturing Crime: Process, Pretext, and Criminal Justice |url=https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=867004085082103115104107110075067126125005064079075023078069075018008084011096119104118012027123051028125125113082091108019083053002058023017127117127096006021101067085066084113094120093024126124070013010069084075006002125093100085031080102124074007&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE |journal=Georgetown Law Journal |volume=97 |pages=17 |via=SSRN}}</ref><ref>[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/judiciary_act.asp Judiciary Act], 1 Stat. 73, § 17 (1789).</ref> Specific penalties for FTAs emerged on the heels of the federal government's campaign to prosecute [[Communist Party USA|Communist]] leaders under the [[Smith Act|Smith Act of 1940]],<ref name=":14">[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/346/875/445737/ United States v. Hall]'','' 346 F.2d 875, 880 (2d Cir. 1965).</ref> which made it a crime to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States".<ref>Smith Act of 1940, [https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1940AlienRegistrationAct.pdf 54 Stat. 670] (1940).</ref> After the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of eleven Communist leaders under the Smith Act in ''Dennis v. United States'', four of the defendants fled in July 1951.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">Daniel J. Freed & Patricia M. Wald, Nat’l Conf. on Bail & Crim. Just., [https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/333NCJRS.pdf Bail in the United States: 1964] 52 (1964).</ref> All four leaders either turned themselves in or were later apprehended,<ref name=":14" /> but their flight would inspire Congress to enact punishments for FTAs three years later:<ref name=":16" /><blockquote>The Federal bail jumping statute was first enacted in 1954 to fill the void in the criminal law highlighted by the conduct of fleeing fugitives who were leaders of the Communist Party. The only available penalties, at that time, were forfeiture of money and contempt proceedings. In the absence of an indictable offense of bail jumping, defendants were able to buy their freedom by forfeiting their bonds and taking the risk that they could go unapprehended. Even if apprehended, many defendants could hide for periods long enough for the government's case, especially for major offenses, to grow weaker because of the unavailability of witnesses, memory lapses, and the like, and thereby defeat the government's prosecutive efforts. They would then be subject only to the criminal contempt charge, the sentence for which was usually of considerably less gravity than for the original offense. These were the reasons that led to the original Federal bail jumping statute of 1954.<ref name=":15">S. Rep. No. [https://books.google.com/books?id=0agvAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA30-PA57 98-108], at 57 (1983).</ref></blockquote>As of 1954, few FTA statutes existed at the state level.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Foote |first=Caleb |date=1954 |title=Compelling Appearance in Court: Administration of Bail in Philadelphia |url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7812&context=penn_law_review |journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review |volume=102 |pages=1068}}</ref> New York and Minnesota were among the earliest adopters of statutes penalizing FTAs, but these laws were rarely used in practice.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Foote |first=Caleb |date=1954 |title=Compelling Appearance in Court: Administration of Bail in Philadelphia |url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7812&context=penn_law_review |journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review |volume=120 |pages=1068–69}}</ref> By 1966, only seven states had separate sanctions for FTAs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Murphy |first=Erin |date=2009 |title=Manufacturing Crime: Process, Pretext, and Criminal Justice |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1279681 |journal=Georgetown Law Review |volume=2009 |pages=19 |ssrn=1279681 |via=SSRN}}</ref> Over thirty states implemented FTA-specific penalties over the next two decades.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Murphy |first=Erin |date=2009 |title=Manufacturing Crime: Process, Pretext, and Criminal Justice |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1279681 |journal=Georgetown Law Review |volume=97 |pages=19 |ssrn=1279681 |via=SSRN}}</ref> These laws coincided with a growing national concern about dangerous defendants and the perceived need for greater deterrence in the pretrial system.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Murphy |first=Erin |date=2009 |title=Manufacturing Crime: Process, Pretext, and Criminal Justice |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1279681 |journal=Georgetown Law Review |volume=97 |pages=18–19 |ssrn=1279681 |via=SSRN}}</ref>

The Bail Reform Act of 1966, one of the first significant pieces of the federal bail legislation, made "willfully fail[ing] to appear before any court or judicial officer as required" punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.<ref>[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-80/pdf/STATUTE-80-Pg214.pdf#page=1 Bail Reform Act of 1966], Pub. L. No. 89-465, § 3150, 80 Stat. 216 (1966).</ref> In 1984, Congress increased the sanctions for FTAs in federal court.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Murphy |first=Erin |date=2009 |title=Manufacturing Crime: Process, Pretext, and Criminal Justice |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1279681 |journal=Georgetown Law Review |volume=97 |pages=18 |ssrn=1279681 |via=SSRN}}</ref> In early versions of the bill, lawmakers expressed their resolve to "deter those who would obstruct law enforcement by failing to appear for trial or other judicial appearances and to punish those who indeed fail to appear".<ref name=":15" /> Lawmakers saw heightening the penalties for FTAs "as a means of enhancing the effectiveness of the bail jumping offense as a deterrent to flight."<ref>S. Rep. No. [https://books.google.com/books?id=0agvAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA30-PA61 98-108], at 61 (1983).</ref>